By Barbara Wesel (DW) - Interior Minister Matteo Salvini and his League’s coalition with the 5-Star movement was only ever a means to an end. His inexorable rise to the top spells more bad news for Italy and the EU, says DW’s Barbara Wesel.

Did anyone really believe that the half-life of this strange coalition in Rome could exceed the average lifetime of Italian governments? The unlikely alliance of the far-right League party and left-wing populist 5-Star Movement (M5S) was doomed to failure from the outset. Now Italy is heading for its 66th government since the end of World War II.

Matteo Salvini is the most shameless and unscrupulous politician Italy has produced in recent decades. He beats Silvio Berlusconi, for whom decency and restraint were also foreign concepts. Lately, for example, Salvini has taken to holding a rosary in his hands when he launches his xenophobic tirades. In doing so, though, he is at odds with the Vatican because he considers the Pope to be on the political left. Nevertheless, the Lega boss believes that a bit of pseudo-religious civility could decorate and paper over his nationalism.

What he hasn’t been able to hide, however, is the paunch he has been parading around on every beach in Italy in front of every smartphone camera he can find. It’s a proletarian gut, he told his critics, as if he ever had anything to do with the working class. The only thing he shares with them is his love of wine and pasta, and he seems to know his compatriots’ taste — men see him as a cheerful macho, women see him as a great seducer. A shot of vulgarity has never hurt in Italy.

This spectacle is precisely calculated, and, if polls are any indication, the Lega leader, along with the help of the far-right Brothers of Italy, could sweep to power in new elections. If that happens, then Salvini — an ally of Russian leader Vladimir Putin — will push Italian politics so far to the right that Brussels will soon have to worry about the rule of law, not just in Hungary or Poland, but also in one of Europe’s founding democracies.

M5S sells its soul

Barbara Wesel (DW)

The prize for being the biggest imbeciles surely goes to the 5-Star Movement. In just a little over a year, the party has managed to hemorrhage around half of its voters to Salvini — blissfully aware of the outcome. Instead of putting the hatemonger in his place, they backed his policies and alienated their leftist voter base. They sold what little there was left of their soul and political integrity for the sake of being in power.

M5S became the stepping stone for Salvini’s power-hungry quest. The party lacked ideas, personnel and strength to counter Salvini’s cynicism and cunning. By all standards — not particularly high to begin within Italian politics — theirs was an abject performance. In a way, they’ve got what they deserved — if it weren’t for the fact that their weakness could propel a politician to the top who openly flirts with fascism.

M5S and the center-left Democratic Party (PD) could save themselves, their reputations and the country by agreeing on a new coalition instead of focusing their efforts on a new election. For now, they would still command a majority. However, it appears that the 5-Star Movement hates the PD more than the right-wing populists, which is both ideologically and politically inexplicable and absurd. The PD, on the other hand, needs someone who can heal the party’s divisiveness and offer an alternative beyond party lines.

A disaster for Italy and Europe

Salvini knows how to play on the emotions of his fellow Italians and has convinced them that they are not responsible for the country’s inability to reform and its mountain of debt. And voters are only too eager to believe in conspiracy theories and that they are being controlled by a foreign power. And if that doesn’t work, Salvini can always blame the country’s ills on the migrants.

Salvini wants to take Italy out of the European, democratic community and into international isolation by whipping up voters in a pseudo battle against Brussels and its insistence on budget discipline. The inherent risk is that Italy’s debt could not simply rock the euro but that a sovereign default could topple the common currency.

Ultimately, it hinges on whether the costs of financing Italy’s debt could persuade Salvini to come to his political and fiscal senses. On the other hand, he may very well have already factored in the euro’s collapse. For the European Union, the crisis in Italy is yet another tinderbox in a long list of conundrums.

Christened Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, he is known to the British public simply as “Boris,” recognized by a trademark mop of unruly blonde hair and a bumbling, gaffe-prone speaking style.

For many years, commentators warmed to his eccentricities, including a passion for cycling, disheveled suits and a legendary lack of punctuality.

Voters forgave the political stunts — he was famously pictured dangling stranded on zip wire during the 2012 London Olympics — and even his weakness for beautiful, smart women. (London’s tabloids nicknamed him ‘Bonking Boris’ for a string of extramarital affairs.)

But as Theresa May learned this year, it is dangerous to dismiss Boris Johnson as a clown.

The image of Johnson stuck on a zipwire underlined his proclivity for gaffes

Educated at Eton, the prestigious boys’ boarding school that has produced a phalanx of British prime ministers, Johnson went on to study classics at Oxford University and speaks both French and Italian.

For decades, his childhood was described as idyllic, until last year, when his younger sister, Rachel — a well-known journalist and now anti-Brexit candidate for the European Parliament — revealed to London’s Sunday Times that their mother, artist Charlotte Johnson, had been crippled by depression and “a galloping obsessive-compulsive disorder,” which saw her hospitalized for long periods.

The young Boris and his three siblings were brought up by a nanny, described as a chain-smoking ”tower of strength” who took the children on when their father, Stanley, secured a job as a civil servant with the European Commission.

Johnson was a journalist before he turned his attention to politics, although his career in media was also marked by controversy. His first proper job, with London’s TheTimes, ended dramatically when he invented a quote from an Oxford history don who happened also to be his godfather. He was caught and sacked.

A couple of years later, he was appointed Brussels correspondent for TheDaily Telegraph where, amidst predominantly europhile media colleagues, he identified an opportunity to make his name and sharpened his pen against the European Union.

In a scathing piece for the New Statesman in 2017, the former foreign editor of the Times, Martin Fletcher, wrote that Johnson’s mission was to inflame Euroskepticism and “debunk the EU at every opportunity,” a practice that both made his name as a journalist and “helped change modern British history.”

Johnson’s well-documented, fierce ambition during his years in Brussels would also end his first marriage: 12 days after his divorce, he married Marina Wheeler, now a lawyer, who was then expecting the first of their four children.

His return to London quickly led to his appointment as the Telegraph‘s chief political columnist, regular TV appearances, the editorship of the Spectator and a return to parliament as MP for Henley in Oxfordshire.

However, an affair with a fellow columnist — hotly denied as “an inverted pyramid of piffle” — led to his sacking from the Tory shadow ministry and the first of several ejections from the marital home.

When former British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had also attended Eton, was elected Tory opposition leader in 2005, he pointedly failed to reappoint Johnson to the shadow Cabinet, apparently infuriated by his colleague upstaging him at a party conference with some ill-advised, headline-grabbing comments.

In 2008, excluded by Cameron and with his journalistic opportunities drying up, Johnson threw his hat into the ring for the role of mayor of London.

Backed by Cameron’s controversial Australian electoral strategist, Lynton Crosby (who wisely insisted his charge say little and keep a low profile), Johnson managed to wrest an increasingly left-leaning London from the Labour incumbent, leading the capital during the triumphant Olympics of 2012 and cementing his presence in the public’s consciousness.

His ego and political ambitions whetted by a second term win as mayor, Johnson was installed in a safe Tory seat and quickly began sharpening the knives for the leadership.

But it was his decision to throw his considerable weight and high profile behind Brexit, touring the country in a red bus to reassure voters of the benefits of leaving the EU, that would be seen as a political watershed in the wake of the shock referendum result in 2016. The subsequent resignation of Cameron became his ticket to stalk an increasingly beleaguered Theresa May. And despite a less than salubrious two-year role as foreign minister and widespread criticism of his opportunistic, divisive role in British politics in the wake of the Brexit vote, Johnson’s eccentric electoral appeal is acknowledged by commentators from both sides of the political divide.

Johnson traveled the country in a bus to convince Brits to vote to leave the EU

Labour political strategist John McTernan agrees with his former boss, Tony Blair, that Johnson is the “right answer for the Tories.”

“They need a candidate who can unite their party, out-Farage Farage [Nigel Farage is Brexit Party leader] and exploit the fact that [Jeremy] Corbyn is seen as unpatriotic by many Labour voters,” he told Deutsche Welle. “When the Conservatives are crushed in the European elections, many Tory MPs will see Boris as the only man who can save their seats.”

Professor Roger Eatwell, co-author with Matthew Goodwin of National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy, argues that Margaret Thatcher, not Johnson, was the most divisive major politician in Britain of the last 50 years and “she led the Conservative Party to three general election victories in a row.”

“Boris’s problem is that, whereas Thatcher was seen as having a new agenda — less state intervention, more free market, etcetera — Boris is seen as a latecomer to Brexit and rather slippery and overambitious,” he told DW.

Boris Johnson, said his ministerial colleague Amber Rudd in 2016, is the “life and soul of the party — but not the man you want driving you home.” (Source – Deutsche Welle)

(WEBPUBLICA) New York – Interior ministers from across the European Union have failed to agree on temporary measures to manage increased migration across the Mediterranean. Officials have told DW that the future of the bloc is at stake, DW (Deutsche Welle) reported.

There were “very different opinions,” French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said, with some ministers refusing to allow more refugees into their country, others appealing for solidarity, and many expressing concern about enticing more migrants to attempt the journey.

Ahead of the meeting, Germany’s conservative interior minister, Horst Seehofer, said he would pursue a “temporary arrangement” for distributing refugees among the member states, but he expressed skepticism that a deal would be reached in one day.

But EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos played down disagreements at the summit.

“Last night it was not a decision-making event,” Avramopoulos said. “We had a brainstorming; as I said, it was very animated.”

France’s Castaner said he is planning to host a meeting in Paris next week with around 15 of the EU’s 28 member states.

“I proposed that we reach agreement as early as yesterday, but I confirm that we have not done so,” Castaner said. “Some states favored refusing to even receive migrants, others favored more solidarity.”

HOW DID EUROPE’S REFUGEE CRISIS START?

Fleeing war and poverty

In late 2014, with the war in Syria approaching its fourth year and Islamic State making gains in the north of the country, the exodus of Syrians intensified. At the same time, others were fleeing violence and poverty in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, Niger and Kosovo.

Luxembourg’s foreign minister, Jean Asselborn, warned that member states needed to show solidarity or the bloc could “break apart.”

“We’re arguing from [the perspective of] two different continents,” he told DW. “Firstly, from a civilized Europe, which France, Germany and others are effectively trying to create. And secondly, another Europe — a humane no-man’s-land. And that’s extremely bad.”

Asselborn stressed that Europe still had a crucial decision to make on migration. ”I hope that the decisive step isn’t that we (reject) a European integration policy,” he said. “Then things would go wrong.”

Germany and France have sought to form an alliance of 10 or so countries for distributing refugees, with Italy still taking in some migrants. Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, however, has categorically rejected this plan.

During the Helsinki summit, Salvini — who has enacted hard-line policies targeting irregular migrants— wrote on Twitter that “ministers from several countries have praised Italy’s policy of defending borders, which has led to a drastic reduction of arrivals in Europe and of deaths in the Mediterranean.”

Commentary by Erkan Arikan (DW) – The Turkish opposition’s victory over the ruling party in Istanbul’s rerun election is an important victory for democracy. It also sets the stage for a possible shift in the country’s politics, writes DW’s Erkan Arikan.

Ekrem Imamoglu from the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) secured a clear victory over Binali Yildirim of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), beating the former prime minister by nine points in an Istanbul rerun election on Sunday that saw high voter turnout.

June 23, 2019 will no doubt go down in the history books of Turkey. It was exactly 19:15 local time when various media outlets began releasing the results. In the first election, Imamoglu eked out a margin of 13,000 votes ahead of the former prime minister. This time, his advantage was nearly 800,000 votes. For many in Turkey that is more than a sign. It is a wake-up call: Democracy in Turkey is still alive.

One indication of this is that all of Imamoglu’s political opponents, who had showered him with insults and defamation during the campaign, subtly congratulated him on his success, even President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

For the president, this defeat is without a doubt a full-on slap in the face. With all of the means at his disposal, he tried to get his candidate to win, even going so far as to put the Supreme Electoral Council under pressure. Yet the electorate made him pay a stiff price.

‘We need justice’

Even the votes of ethnic Kurds were sought by the AKP in an unprecedented way. However, the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) had called on their supporters to vote for Imamoglu. For the first time in Turkey, I’ve seen people outwardly express their desire for democracy.

Shortly after the Supreme Electoral Council set the rerun election date for June 23, many vacation spots urged Istanbulites to cancel their holidays and stay home for the vote. Special means of transportation were deployed, busses chartered and carpooling organized to bring people to Istanbul to cast their ballot. It turned out that hundreds of thousands – some even claim 1.5 million voters – came to Istanbul for 24 hours to cast their ballots. Bridal couples, before they said their vows, first went to the voting booths. A taxi driver I talked to said: “I have always chosen the AKP. I will not do it this time. We need justice. We are believers and not hypocrites!”

What does it mean for Erdogan’s AKP?

Erdogan now finds himself in a huge dilemma. He can no longer continue in the same fashion with hardline policies, restrictions on the press and pressure on members of the opposition. In addition to the foreign policy tightrope he has long walked, there is now a new domestic political force in front of him.

The loss of Istanbul after 25 years — as mayor of Istanbul he launched his rise to the top of politics — will also leave its mark on him. There are even signs that his former allies have been waiting for this historic defeat in the metropolis on the Bosphorus.

TURKEY: BACK TO ERDOGAN’S ISTANBUL ROOTS

Erdogan’s hometown

Just a short walk from Galata Tower and Istanbul’s central Istiklal Avenue on the European side of the city, sits Kasimpasa. It’s the neighborhood where the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was born and raised 65 years ago. It’s also the place where his most loyal supporters live.

It has been rumored over the past weeks and months that founding members of the AKP plan to launch a new party, an idea that may gain greater traction with the CHP victory in Istanbul.

Is this the end of Erdogan? Hardly likely. Erdogan will not let this defeat bring him down. Is this a turning point for Erdogan? Absolutely. Erdogan has two paths he can take: He could continue with an even harder course or he could do everything, including reaching compromises, to stay in power.

His biggest goal is still to remain president until the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic in 2023, which coincides with the next scheduled parliamentary and presidential elections. To do so, Erdogan will have to make more compromises in the future — perhaps for the first time in his political career.

By Rikard Jozwiak (RFE) – BRUSSELS –European Union democracy is alive and kicking. That is the best takeaway from last night’s results in the European Parliament elections as the fear of a populist wave seems to have prompted people to go and vote and make history by increasing overall voter turnout for the first time in European history.

But beyond that happy headline, Europeans elected a chamber that is more fragmented than ever where populists still made gains, as did pro-EU Greens and Liberals, at the expense of the two dominant forces for decades in EU politics – the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the center-left Socialists & Democrats (S&D).

But for now, officials in the European Parliament will focus on that number — the estimated 50.5 percent of EU citizens who cast a vote over four days of European elections in the 28 member states.

I looked at the relieved faces of some of them on the afternoon of May 26 as numbers from country after country indicated that voter turnout was on the up.

For EU officials, this is the big thing.

People have always questioned the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament but now they can hit back — the trend has bucked, the U-turn made.

Ever since direct elections to the chamber started back in 1979, when 62 percent of the eligible population went to the ballots, the number has shrunk at every vote. In the last election in 2014, it hit a new low with 42.5 percent.

This year’s result is better than the previous four elections.

Scaremongering On Both Sides

The question is why did this happen?

The answer from voters is scaremongering on both sides.

In the pro-EU camp, the fear of a parliament full of Euroskeptics made people take notice and action.

And on the populists’ side it was the fear of immigrant invasions and domination from Brussels that won the day.

The Most Interesting Candidates Running For European Parliament

As a result, populists finished on top in countries like France, Hungary, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom but they also did quite poorly in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Finland and the Netherlands.

They will now have well over 100 members in the 751-seat parliament but it appears that they will be divided into at least two political groups and some of them, like Hungary’s Fidesz, are still in the pro-EU EPP.

They will make more noise than before but that they won’t be able to block any legislation, especially since — apart from their dislike of the EU — they agree on little else among themselves.

Green Tide

But there was also a Green tide in the Western half of the bloc, with a sensational second place in Germany and surprisingly good results in France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom that most probably will make them the fourth biggest political group in the parliament.

In the eastern part of the union they were conspicuously absent, however.

Another winner, the liberals, will have close to 110 seats, making it the third force — and a potential kingmaker in the plenary.

The two losers are the two biggest parties, the EPP and the S&D.

For the first time ever, they won’t have a majority between them as both lost around 40 seats.

Their candidates spoke of the “the fall of the center” and that they now have to reach out to other parties to find workable majorities.

And this will be needed very soon as the work now starts to find the next president of the European Commission.

EU heads of government are due to meet in Brussels on May 28 for a summit dedicated to starting the process of identifying this person.

They do so knowing full well that whoever they put forward must be approved by a majority of the new European Parliament, which starts working in July.

It’s a parliament with a reinforced democratic mandate, but also one that is more colorful and fragmented than ever.

Stevo Pendarovski president of Northern Macedonia (Courtesy photo for education only – balkans.com)

BIRN (Balkan News) SKOPJE, NORTHERN MACEDONIA - The results from Sunday’s second round of presidential elections in North Macedonia suggested that Stevo Pendarovski, the candidate supported by the country’s ruling parties, has won the election, after taking a firm lead against his rival, Gordana Siljanovska, who was backed by the main opposition VMRO DPMNE party.

After 96.87 percent of votes were counted, Pendarovski had won 421,487 votes, or 51.86 percent of votes cast. Siljanovska won 361,984 votes, or 44.54 percent, the preliminary unofficial results of the State Electoral Commission showed.

At a press conference on Sunday night, the main ruling Social Democratic Union, SDSM, declared victory on behalf of their candidate and started to celebrate.

“The people have recognized the concept that leads forward, that leads to EU and NATO integration. The citizens today chose a forward-looking president at democratic and fair elections,” Kostadin Kostadinov, the Social Democratic spokesperson, told a press conference.

“I am joining today the leadership in this country that strives for a Euro-Atlantic, democratic and prosperous country. The dark past is behind us thanks to the mature and wise decision of our people”, Pendarovski told a press conference later this evening.

The main opposition VMRO DPMNE party at a press conference held on the same evening accused the government of “electoral engineering” and said it had have spotted “many irregularities”. Election monitors during the day did not report major electoral irregularities.

Putting on a brave face on likely defeat, VMRO DPMNE secretary general Igor Janushev said his party had won in “many municipalities”, which he said showed that “VMRO DPMNE is back in a big way” and that, “[Prime Minister Zoran] Zaev’s fall has begun.”

One of the main concerns about the election was whether enough people would turn out. At least 40 percent of the total electorate must cast ballots for the election result to be deemed valid.

According to the preliminary results, however, the turnout on Sunday was more than 46 percent, which means that the election will be deemed a success.

Many observers had feared meeting the threshold would be hard to achieve, given that during the first round, the turnout was just slightly above 41 percent, the lowest in any presidential poll since the country gained independence in 1991.

The official results from the first round of presidential voting are expected to arrive on Monday. (Source – BIRN)

By Giulia Saudelli (DW) –Since the financial crisis, Italy has struggled to kick-start its growth, and is lagging behind its European neighbors. But the causes of the country’s malaise date back decades — and hope for change is meager.

Over the last decade, Italy has often been pinpointed as the “sick man in Europe,” a vulnerable economy that is a risk to the European Union’s financial stability.

Still today, a series of disappointing numbers are alerting analysts to the fact that Italy’s vulnerability might be increasing.

The country’s government recently cut its growth forecast for the year from 1% to 0.2%.

Eurostat recently confirmed that Italy’s public debt has reversed its declining trend and has grown almost 1% in 2018, reaching 132.2% of gross domestic product (GDP). In total numbers, Italy’s public debt is the EU’s highest, and with the meager growth forecasted for this year, it is expected to rise.

According to Carlo Alberto Carnevale-Maffe, Professor at Bocconi University School of Management in Milan, the situation is actually worse than the government estimates.

He and other analysts expect zero or even negative growth, as internal demand remains low and both public and private investment have dropped.

“Our export is robust, but it’s the only positive component of our GDP,” he tells DW. ”And it isn’t able to bear the weight of the national economy on its own.”

A political and economic system that’s been faulty for decades

To find the root causes of Italy’s economic malaise, one must look to its history, argues Andrea Capussela, author of The Political Economy of Italy’s Decline.

His book traces the country’s political and economic history, pinpointing events and trends that have lead Italy to today’s decline.

Throughout the last few decades, one recurrent trait is the country’s malfunctioning social institutions — in particular the lack of rule of law and political accountability — which hinder productivity, innovation and therefore growth.ITALY’S POPULIST GOVERNMENT: KEY PLAYERS Conte: Novice at the helm

Giuseppe Conte, a little-known law professor with no political experience, was picked by the League and 5-Star Movement (M5S) as their candidate for prime minister. He was forced to temporarily give up his leadership bid after the parties’ cabinet selection was initially blocked. However, after the two parties struck a deal with President Sergio Mattarella, Conte was eventually sworn in on June 1.

After the Second World War, Capussela tells DW, Italy’s economic miracle was based on importing superior manufacturing technology from abroad, mostly from the United States. For such a model, which pushes for innovation and growth, Italy’s faulty institutions were not an obstacle to development.

Things started changing in the 1970s and 1980s, when Italy evolved into a fully formed industrial economy, and its industrial districts started developing. At this point, the country was nearing its technological and production frontiers, and needed solid social institutions to spur innovation and deliver competitiveness.

With the 1992 economic and currency crisis, the previous growth model was ultimately blown up. Italy’s growth “was once again based solely on structural factors — namely productivity growth — and finally the decline of such growth, which we are still experiencing, became clear,” Capussela says.

The other big crisis in 2008 landed a further blow to Italy’s economy.

No recent change and no change in sight

Since the crisis, nothing has really changed, Capussela believes, both in terms of improving Italy’s rule of law and political accountability, and in terms of measures to spur growth.

Italy’s spat with Brussels over its proposed budget deficit caused a stir at the end of last year — it was finally lowered from 2.4% to 2.04%, moderately appeasing all parties involved. But the problem is not necessarily how much budget the country has, but how it spends it.

Both Capussela and Carnevale-Maffe agree that Italy’s government isn’t spending soundly.

“The issue is not that they haven’t produced more growth; the issue is that they haven’t tackled the deep causes of these problems.” says Capussela. “In the short-term, the inefficient public spending; in the long-term, Italy’s inefficient institutions — and none of this has been done.”

Italy – rising up against the EU

Carnevale-Maffe details exactly which measures are detrimental to the quality of Italy’s public spending.

“Some countries spend on public investment that increases productivity,” he says. “But with the new pension reform, which increases the pension expenditure by tens of billions of euros, Italy isn’t promoting the economy’s growth; on the contrary, it depresses growth, it reduces employment and it raises the financial burden for the new generations.”

The outlook for the future is also not so rosy.

Carnevale-Maffe doesn’t expect a recovery in 2019, as “what’s done is done.” What happens in 2020 depends on the political situation.

A situation that currently doesn’t look promising with the two government parties, the Five Star Movement and the League, constantly pitted against each other, unable to even reach an agreement on the country’s economic growth plan. (Source DW)

By Kersten Knipp (DW) – Berlin - Ahead of the European elections in May, the EU is in the midst of its most radical crisis ever, warns Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev. He says the bloc needs more courage and less German risk aversion.

DW: Your last book has an astonishing title: “After Europe”. Does that mean Europe no longer exists?

Ivan Krastev: The book expressed my disagreement with people who take the European Union for granted. I do not say the EU is going to disintegrate. But the EU we have known for the last 20 or 30 years is not going to be there anymore. Is this a pessimistic view? No, because the EU has been changing very much during the last decades. My argument is directed against those who are convinced that nothing can happen because the European Union is going to stay and the current crisis is a normal one. No, it’s a more radical crisis than any other we have ever experienced before.

I belong to the Eastern European generation of 1989. Until then, “Europe” meant “Western Europe.” Thus, the utopia of 1989 was a utopia of normality: We wanted to be normal and normality means to live like Western Europeans. The transformation that took place was based on the idea that you should imitate the West. Some of the crises we currently see in Eastern Europe express a revolt against imitation. A part of the problem you see in Hungary or Poland is a return to tradition. It resembles the kind of resentment you see in the second generation of immigrants, which starts questioning its identity. This is the case in many Eastern European states.

On the other hand, Eastern Europeans are used to political changes

.

Ivan Krastev: Can the EU survive a possible return of the UK?

Yes, this is very important. Imagine the utopia of communism in the 1930s and 40s: You’re trying to build a society that never existed. This is totally abstract, a utopia that exists only in books. But this was exactly what explained its constancy.

Paradoxically, Eastern Europeans started to imitate existing societies after the end of communism — those of the West, that changed very much during the last 30 years. Imagine a conservative Pole: In 1985, he dreamed of Western Europe and said we, the Eastern Europeans, should be “normal.” From his perspective, “normal” meant — unlike in communist countries — that the church is being respected. But then he discovers that this “West” he has been imitating is skeptical about the church — quite the opposite from what he believes to be “normal.” In a strange way, Eastern Europe became the victim of an almost schizophrenic idea of normality. So the question is: Where can you find a utopia today?

What about people in Western Europe? Are they looking for a utopia, too?

Think about the “Gilets Jaunes” in France: They put on their yellow vests in order to be seen. From this point of view, you have a lot of people who basically do not feel represented in public life. They are convinced that the decisions made in Brussels do not reflect their real problems. In a certain way, the “yellow vests” represent all the people outside the major cities who think the governments and the European Commission don’t understand them. These people don’t fear the end of the world. But they fear the end of the month. Another group is what I call “the unheard.” They’re very visible and mostly young. Take the protesters against climate change. Their message is: Probably we are a minority, but we want to be heard because we need policies for our future in 30 years, not only in three years. And then you have the third group, the immigrants. Unlike the other groups, they do not want to be so visible. While the “yellow vests” are suffering because nobody sees them, the immigrants have the feeling that everybody is looking at them — while they only want to be left alone for a while. So you have three different ways of political wishful thinking.

As Brexit looms: Escape to Britain

I was very unhappy about the UK leaving the European Union, but now I have to ask: Can the European Union survive a possible return of the United Kingdom? This is not a rhetorical question, because the UK that could decide to come back would not be the same as the one that wanted to leave the EU. It is a very divided and resentful society. The humiliation Britain experienced cannot be taken out of the analysis. However, no major political party in the EU is currently advocating for leaving the EU or the euro. Thus, Brexit first destabilized and then stabilized the European Union on a certain level.

What about Germany? Could it lead the EU?

In Germany, the least guarded border is the one between mainstream political parties and the more extreme ones. People are moving in all directions: not just from the mainstream parties to the populist parties, but also the other way around. This level of confusion, this fear of the future also reflects the mentality of an aging society. Germany’s way of thinking about the world resembles the perspective of retired people and pension funds. We enter a period in which Europe is probably going to do some risky things in order to succeed. Germany seems very stable and successful, but at the same time very risk averse. It remains to be seen whether this risk aversion offers Germany the leadership of the European Union.

Ivan Krastev is a political scientist, the chairman of the Center for Liberal Strategies in Sofia and a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.

By Kate Fergunson (DW) – In Germany, the willingness to pay for peace of mind dates back more than a century. But are today’s insurance companies equipped to allay the nation’s biggest fears? DW’s Kate Ferguson takes a closer look. For the last quarter of a century, German insurance group R&V has been conducting an annual survey of the country’s biggest fears. The results offer a fascinating insight into the national psyche.

Terrorism took over as the biggest fear in both 2016 and 2017. And last year, none other than US President Donald Trump became the biggest source of German angst.

All of this is of course very interesting to insurance companies, whose businesses are built on and sustained by fear. This applies especially in Germany, which has a long and rich history of paying for peace of mind.

The state sets the tone. Your contributions are deducted automatically from your salary at a rate of 14.6 percent. You and your employer pay half each. Unemployment, pension and long-term care insurance are also taken out of your pay.

Liability insurance isn’t legally required, but people will raise an eyebrow if you don’t have any. Additional dental insurance, for procedures not covered by the statutory system, comes widely recommended. And if you have a pet, expect to be judged for not guarding against all eventualities. One company I found promises to reimburse you for the costs of looking after your guinea pig in the case that you’re hospitalized. The price of that peace of mind begins at €13.39 ($15.15) a month.

Alleviating angst is a highly lucrative business. In 2017, for which the latest figures are available, German insurance firms took in a total of €198 billion in contributions and provided work for more than half a million people.

Well, angst is a German word. But more importantly, I feel there is something in the Teutonic character that favors dealing with fears head-on, rather than repressing them and leaving things to fate as other nations tend to do.

Prussian stateman as mastermind

With this in mind, it makes sense to me that the architect of modern social insurance was none other than Otto von Bismarck. The bushy-mustached 19th century Prussian statesman is best known for his pursuit of German unity. But his creation of the world’s first welfare state is an equally remarkable legacy.

Ironically, it was a fear of socialism that made him do it. Specifically, Bismarck was concerned by the growing might of a workers’ movement spearheaded by the Social Democratic Party which he labeledreichsfeinde, or enemies of the empire.

Keen to ensure his own political survival, Bismarck sought to address workers’ anxieties directly. In the 1880s, he introduced old-age and accident insurance, as well as socialized health care. Participation was compulsory and

German-welfare since 1883; lecture 2014 by Maximilian Held (Courtesy photo for education only)

German angst, like the insurance system designed around it, has developed over time. These days, Germans no longer fear impoverishment and ill health as much as they do geopolitical developments across the Atlantic.

The first firm to offer insurance against the incendiary potential of a US presidential tweet stands to make a killing.

By David Phillips – The caller ID indicated that Richard Holbrooke was on the phone. Curious, I thought. Holbrooke was in Belgrade with Slobodan Milosevic negotiating the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo.

Holbrooke was on the tarmac in Belgrade. Negotiations had broken down and NATO would start bombing the next day.

My heart pounded. After ten years advocating action against Milosevic’s tyranny, it had come to this. The United States was finally backing diplomacy with a credible threat of force.

Holbrooke wanted me to have Albanian-Americans alert their relatives. He knew that Serbian intelligence would be monitoring the calls. Instead of flying back to the US, Holbrooke went to Budapest. He called Milosevic the next morning, offering a last chance.

Milosevic sneered: “America will never go to war to protect Shiptars [a derogatory term for Albanians]”.

NATO started bombing the next afternoon, on March 24, 1999. The air campaign lasted 78 days until Milosevic surrendered. I was proud of America for going to war to stop the genocide in Kosovo.

This week is the 20-year anniversary of NATO’s intervention. Kosovo is free and independent. That can’t be reversed.

However, only 116 countries have recognised Kosovo. When Kosovo declared independence in 2008, Serbia launched a diplomatic campaign to impede Kosovo’s international recognition. It still refuses to accept that Kosovo was lost as a result of Milosevic’s crimes.

Aleksandar Vucic, Milosevic’s chief propagandist and Serbia’s current president, is in denial. He insists that Kosovo is still a province of Serbia.

The Kosovo-Serbia Dialogue was launched in 2011. It was promising at first. However, not much was accomplished beyond agreements on license plates, area codes, and border management. Other agreements were stonewalled by Serbia.

The dialogue became a fiasco. The two sides have not even agreed on the meaning of ‘normalisation’. Serbia refers to the government of Kosovo as the “provisional authorities of Kosovo and Metohija”.

While Serbian officials feign amity at the table in Brussels, they work to undermine Kosovo’s efforts to gain greater global recognition. Supported by Russia, Serbia actively discourages countries to establish relations with Kosovo.

It campaigns against Kosovo’s membership in international organisations such as UNESCO and INTERPOL. It even tries to persuade countries that have recognised Kosovo to withdraw their recognition.

There were no new recognitions last year. Despite efforts by Kosovo’s foreign minister, countries are waiting for the dialogue to result in an agreement before committing themselves.

Kosovo’s President, Hashim Thaci, has proposed border adjustment in exchange for recognition. Most Kosovars oppose partition. The debate has been a huge distraction. Instead of negotiating with Serbia, Kosovo politicians are arguing with one another.

The partition plan is ill-conceived. Border adjustment gives away land for nothing. Vucic cannot deliver a parliamentary majority to change Serbia’s constitution and recognise Kosovo. He cannot compel the EU non-recognisers, especially Spain, to shift course. There is no guarantee that Russia will lift its veto so that Kosovo can become a member state of the UN.

Moreover, Vucic is playing a long game. He hopes the international community will lose interest, abandon Kosovo, and welcome Serbia into the EU. He wants Brussels to lift Chapter 35, which conditions Serbia’s EU membership on normalisation of relations with Kosovo.

Delay and disinformation are working for Vucic. Serbia uses the tariff as an excuse to boycott the dialogue, which is dormant until the European elections in May and selection of new commissioners in the autumn.

The tariffs are a wedge issue, which has divided Kosovo from the United States. Instead of pressuring Serbia to recognise Kosovo within its current borders, the Trump administration blames Kosovo for scuttling negotiations by imposing a 100-per-cent tariff on Serbian goods. It fails to acknowledge that the tariffs were imposed in response to heavy-handed tactics by Serbia at the INTERPOL meeting last December when Kosovo’s membership was rejected.

Serbia is seeking to discredit Kosovo in the eyes of the international community and compromise its legitimacy. The uncertainty is taking its toll on Kosovo’s economy. Its unemployment rate is the highest in the region. In the absence of legal status, foreign direct investment has eroded.

The Special Court meanwhile hangs like the sword of Damocles over Thaci’s head. Prosecutors have been conducting many interviews regarding alleged war crimes. Could Thaci’s pro-Serbian stance be a deal with Vucic to withhold information from the Special Court in exchange for a territorial concession that is advantageous to Serbia?

We did not envision such challenges when NATO intervened 20 years ago. The West should come together in support of Kosovo as a sovereign, multi-ethnic state. We learned from the 1990s that territorial integrity is critical to peace and stability in the Balkans.

It is also high time for Kosovars to demand change. If the people of Kosovo don’t do it, the Special Court probably will.

David Phillips is Director of the Program on Peace-building and Rights at Columbia University. He served as Senior Adviser to the US Department of State under Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama. He is the author of ‘Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and US Intervention’, published by Harvard’s Kennedy School.